Progressive Revelation

The following is a post that I created for my Biblical Theology of the Old Testament class which I am currently taking online. I thought I would share as these are questions for all of my blog readers as well.

-----

One of the issues I have been pondering recently is the idea of
progressive revelation. I was reminded of this issue again as I read
Christopher's H. J. Wright's article in which he points out that "some
OT exclusion laws seem to be repealed... within the OT itself (e.g.
the contrast between Isa. 56:1-8 and Deut. 23:1-8)" (286). Wright
goes on to summarize, "The point then is that we cannot fully
interpret any single text with confidence that we have 'heard the mind
of God' on the matter, until it is set in the wider light of canonical
teaching" (286).

I have always accepted the idea of progressive revelation as having
the best explanatory power when dealing with difficult (shall I say,
"offensive"?) laws in the OT. I find particularly disturbing the laws
about how physically deformed and handicapped people were not able to
enter into the temple of God. This completely contradicts my entire
understanding of the ministry of Jesus which celebrates the least and
marginalized of our world. I think the best way to understand such
offensive OT laws is to read them contextually within their culture
and as having been nullified by God's later progressive revelation.
But this is not without problems.

First, if God truly does reveal his will progressively, then why do we
have a closed canon? Do we believe that God spoke to Moses, the
prophets, Jesus, and the authors of the NT, but then after the canon
was formed and solidified that he stopped speaking? I doubt that we
believe this. But if we reject such a notion then why give more
authority to the Bible than say the writings of the Didache or the
patristics or, heck, even C. S. Lewis?

Secondly, does an acceptance of progressive revelation entail
rejecting the notion of absolute, timeless truth? For example, if it
was once declared right by God to exclude the physically handicapped
from his temple, but it is now considered wrong to exclude the
physically handicapped from his sanctuaries and temples throughout the
world, then did God's will change? Is what was once right now wrong
and once wrong now right? If so, is all morality contingent purely
upon historical-cultural location? And if that is true then do we
have any right to declare that the Bible is a more credible source for
ethics than the Quran or Bagavad-Gita or the pop psychology of Oprah?

I eagerly anticipate your responses because I honestly don't know the
answers to these questions and I think they are very important.
Thanks!